Contents

This Is A Suspect Article

Would someone be so kind as to fact-check it, including all citations, and repair it? It is mainly the work of the deceitful (now blocked) Liberal Sysop Richard. There are many factual inaccuracies. Thanks! --~ TerryKMyTalk 19:26, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

For the record—and since I’m sick of seeing “liberal” used to describe any behavior we don’t like—Richard does not describe himself as liberal—in fact in his post about this issue he writes: “I still don't consider myself a "liberal" (except in the classic sense) as I'm no fan of socialism nor do I buy the concept of "economic justice". [1]. “Liberal” has a meaning, and that meaning is not “anything I don’t like”.--Reginod 09:08, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

It's not ideological; it is an issue of good faith. RobS 18:22, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I am not commenting on anything other than the misuse of the word “liberal” by TerryK and others on this site. I’m not commenting here on what Richard did, other people (like you) are making the same points I would make, and, as I see it, the remaining issue (how to make sure this doesn’t happen again) is one the administrative team is going to have to handle and is not something I have any expertise in and so is something I’m not going to say anything about. However, labeling Richard a “liberal” just because his behavior on this site was dishonest is a clear misuse of the word “liberal”—“liberal” does not mean “anyone we don’t like” and using it to mean that is something I find very distasteful and something I can do something about. Let me be clear, I condemn Richard’s actions I am not writing in support of them, I am making one point and one point only—that Richard did something wrong does not make him a “liberal”.--Reginod 19:11, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Has nothing to do with being a "liberal", etc. He was a subversive disinformation operative, one of dozens we see daily. RobS 19:15, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree, this has nothing to do with Richard being “liberal”—but TerryK seems to disagree. He wrote that this article “ …is mainly the work of the deceitful (now blocked) Liberal Sysop Richard.” Had he not felt the need to ad the word “liberal” I would not have commented, but he did and so I felt the need to respond.--Reginod 19:19, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Everything he wrote is accurate. He just left other things out and phrased it in such a way that it comes off as a fawning lovenote to the guy instead of a genuine critique. Which, again, is the whole point. TPTB (and esp. Andy) were all content to let it stand b/c he had the "proper" political viewpoint. Andy even SysOped him b/c of this article. Isn't THAT the issue you should be more concerned about? It's like a doctor just revealed a tumor and you're more concerned about the doctor finding it than finding a cure.--Dave3172 09:28, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

So, in other words, leaving things out is honest and the mark of a scholar? He boasted in his own blog he added false citations. Talk around it all you like, gentlemen, obsfucate all you like. He and his work are dishonest. Self-admittedly so. Try making this a political debate all you want, but try it on someone who isn't a professional in the field. He joined voluntairly, particpated willingly, all for only one pupose, to play "gothcha". --~ TerryKMyTalk 17:35, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

And how long did you let it stay here? Why didn't you, or Andy, or anyone else check his work? Why, with such a supposedly shoddy article, was Richard made a SysOp? THESE are the things that should be concerning you, not that I found it funny or that he did it in the first place. It never could have happened if there were better controls and a lack of a denied - but painfully obvious - bias towards what passes for conservative thought these days.--Dave3172 19:13, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Do I agree this is a bad article? Last time I read it, yes. Did I say anything about the article in my comment? Last time I read it, no. My point was that some people on this site—and you TerryK are one of them – use “liberal” to mean “anything I don’t like”. That is not the meaning of the word “liberal”. Your claim that this article “...is mainly the work of the deceitful (now blocked) Liberal Sysop Richard” is false – the sysop Richard is not a liberal. That was my point. I said nothing about the quality of the article, nothing about the quality of Richard’s edits, nothing about Richard’s moral character, and nothing about anything else in your response. --Reginod 18:03, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, I apologize, Reginod, when I first read this page, it appeared you were not the only person posting here. My eyes are getting older, so perhaps they fool me now and then. :p And no matter what Richard says, he is not a Conservative, by any honest appraisal of his actions or words. Attacking me, and lumping me in with whoever else is helping on this project is deceitful and dishonest, and dis-proven by my posts. Shame on you. Spend some time fixing the article so it worthy of its topic, rather than just posting your disagreement with me. --~ TerryKMyTalk 18:13, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

No you were right, and at first I thought you may not have been addressing me, but then I read your post again “Talk around it all you like, gentlemen, obsfucate all you like.” The key word there being “gentlemen”, plural, and there were only two people, besides you, involved in the discussion at the time—so I assumed you were responding to me and the other person who had commented. I never said that Richard was a conservative – I read his post and based on what he had to say I would call him centrist—there are more than two political positions that a person could hold and “liberal” does not mean “anyone who is not conservative”. You have done exactly what I have said you have done (misused the word “liberal” to mean something totally different from its meaning) and you’ve done it here—but that is all I am saying you have done. Anything I haven’t said, I haven’t said—I’ve said everything I wanted to and nothing more or less, so please do not try to read anything more than that into my words. As far as fixing the article goes, I’m not much of a historian (and most of my historical knowledge is about time periods other than the one President Harding was active during) and I’m working on something else at the moment, but I thought this was a teachable moment so I took some time out to make, what I believe to be, an important point.--Reginod 18:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

So, your point would be to object to me or Andy not catching it before? Before what? I did, within a couple of days of first signing up. I have only been "here" for what? Two weeks? It is a red-herring argument to try and shift the blame to others, somehow saying the responsibility for the prank was other than Richard's blame. Please stop doing that. A place this large, no one group of people can keep on top of every article. I had it on my list, along with the other pages I have already edited or created, and since I am already working 60-80 hours per week at what earns me money, this place has to take a back seat. Your other point, if I am focusing properly, is that I am somehow misusing the term "Conservative" and "Liberal", by using them in other than their orthodox, dictionary meaning? I agree. Guilty 100% of doing that. That is the dynamic nature of language. Get used to it. --~ TerryKMyTalk 22:04, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Reading this article, we see User:Richard did not do his homework. He made a rather lame partisan attack on Republicans and conservatives, but for all the effort he put in trying to impugn modern Repubs & conservs with obsolete information, he really only embarassed himself as a classic "mindless partisan", i.e. he's a partisan and he doesn't even know what he's partisan about.RobS 22:16, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Since the second point you address is clearly mine, I am going to assume that this is in part directed at me. The first point you respond to is, for the record, not an argument I have ever made—I am not saying that—I wouldn’t even bother to say I’m not saying that except you call the second point “your other point” which suggests that you think the first point was something I also said (maybe you are using “other” in a manner I am not familiar with).

Your response to my point also leaves something to be desired. Yes, the meaning of words changes – I understand, admit and accept that fact. But, this site is billed around the divide in the modern world between “liberals” and “conservatives”, this means that we – all users of this site – should be especially careful to use these terms in line with their modern meaning. Likewise this site is supposed to be encyclopedic and so users should use the modern meaning of words to make sure that the content is actually accessible. If you do intend to use words to mean anything other than their modern meaning, at the very least, I think you ought to provide a note so that your actual meaning is clear.--Reginod 09:05, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

How could this marvellous article have omitted to include a family-friendly description of the zany, madcap antics engaged in by Nan Britton and "Mr. Harding" in the White House coat closet, amongst the galoshes? Note: irony. Dpbsmith 20:30, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

even wikipedia admits harding was innocent here: "Warren G. Harding was not, directly, personally or otherwise, aware of the scandal. At the time of his death in 1923 he was just beginning to learn of problems deriving from the actions of his appointee". I think you expose your Liberal bias. Richard 21:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Uh, Nan Britton was associated with a different scandal, not Teapot Dome. She was... how to say this... the Monica Lewinsky of the Roaring Twenties. Dpbsmith 21:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

says harding's critics and the MSM. There is no unbiased source to substantiate that Richard 21:37, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

if you haven't noticed, the article is one big stupid joke... Splark 20:33, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

What makes you say this is a joke?--Aschlafly 20:39, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

"Mr. Harding's unassailable character was an exemplary example for all Americans" Keep in mind all of his scandals, extramarital affairs, and everything else that was omitted (including his admission to be not mentally up to the job). I think you're being tricked by a liberal smart-aleck. Splark 20:43, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

And do you have unbiased sources that actually substantiate those claims? This is just like McCarthy, who has been proven right by history. Richard 21:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Note that the article is referenced. If you feel other material that is sufficiently factual and ideologically compatible then please add it rather than engaging in ad hominem attacks against my character (calling me a liberal) Richard 21:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Splark, with all due respect, I think you've been duped by liberal history books. Harding was one of the most conservative presidents and was maligned by liberals because he was conservative. Do you buy everything the media says about other conservatives, such as Anita Bryant?--Aschlafly 21:47, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree that the teapot dome issue should be handled. I'm researching it. Patience, the article didn't exist until today. Granted the teapot issue looks rather small compared to whitewater or other incidents and seems more appropriate for an article on the secretary of the interior than Mr. Harding, but it did bother him and happened on his watch so it should be at least mentioned. As for the quote, I've no idea where, when or if he actually said that. The affairs cannot be substantiated even wikipedia treats them skeptically and Britton seems to be a scurrilous character. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Harding#Extramarital_affairs). Let's fill out the article but not be mislead by period and later liberal biases and innuendo. Richard 22:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, we have a rule against gossip here. It's a distraction at best and misleading and destructive at worst. Truth is often impossible to determine and relevancy is often dubious.--Aschlafly 01:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

League of Nations

I disagree with the removal of the league of nations paragraph. It is true that the senate did not ratify the treaty under Wilson but part of the Harding landslide was that he promised to keep us out and the American people rejected Wilson's internationalist policies. In context of the presidency Harding was a key figure in keeping us out of the League. Had we avoided the Truman period we might have dodged the United Nations bullet as well. Richard 22:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I disagree. The Senate was already on record as opposing the League. Harding's assumption of the Presidency did nothing to enhance or reduce that. --Dave3172 23:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Avoiding the League had nothing to do with not entering the Spanish Revolution or the beginnings of WW2, especially WW2 since the League was for all intents defunct by 1939. Even had we joined, we'd have avoided either conflict. --Dave3172 23:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

One of the reasons that the league went defunct was America refused to join it. Obviously it would have lasted longer and we'd have been involved in many conflicts sooner had we gotten involved. The United Nations proves that. Richard 23:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

You are making an assumption that cannot be supported by the facts. US involvement in the League wouldn't have led to involvement in Spain. Neither France nor the UK got heavily involved though both were League members. One of the two countries that did (Germany) left the League.

And the WW2 contention is just not correct. By war's beginning the league was a joke. The war began due to occurences outside the League's influence. --Dave3172 23:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Gentlemen the fact is that the League was a joke because the most important nation, whose (former) leader proposed it, stayed out of it. Without the US, it was a European talking shop like the UN is today when not backed by US force (the real tea dome scandal). You can claim up and down that not joining the league didn't keep us out of wars that were not in our interest but history and the facts simply don't support you. Richard 23:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Richard, you can't claim a negative. You cannot prove that staying out of the League kept us out of Spain and the beginning of WW2. So, for that reason alone, you can't rightly add it here. It's not factually accurate. To be frank, its a ridiculous assertion.--Dave3172 00:04, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Fine we can leave it out. I think you're pushing your liberal agenda a bit far but I insist we DO include that he helped continue to keep us out and I added a reference TO that effect. We'll leave it to the reader's imagination the negative effects that would have come to pass if we had joined that unholy "supergovernment" as Harding referred to it. Richard 01:17, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Richard, I think the current paragraph is fine. And while you'll continue to deny it, I think this entry is one of the finest pieces of satire I've ever read. --Dave3172 07:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

On big failure of the League of Nations was the inability to deal with the problem of "foreign national volunteers" entering Spain to engage in belligerency. A "foreign national volunteer" in 1936-38 would be akin to an "unlawful combatant" today. The discussion of "unlawful combatants" today always centers on the Geneva Convention of 1949, which had both the Spanish Civil War & WWII in perspective, but the problem in the 1936-38 period was persons from non-belligerent member states, like the US, UK, France, Netherlands, etc., crossing international boundaries to engage in an armed conflict within a League of Nations member state, not unlike Eygptians, Saudis, etc., crossing into Iraq to engage in active belligerency against coalition forces or the current iraq government.

Where the problem arises, is when these private combatant volunteers from a neutral (or even allied) state return home for R&R, and then go back into the zone of belligerncy, because then Spain, or Iraq today, can accuse the foreign government of harboring belligents engaged in actively trying to overthrow the legitimate government where the belligerncy is taking place. Hence what is possible is, "foreign national volunteers" or "unlawful combatants", whichever term you wish to use, can actually draw their native country into a war that the citizens and government of their native country have no interest in being invloved in (something like this scenario occurred in 1970 when the territory of Cambodia was being used to launch attacks against the government of South Vietnam). In my view, the League never saw this as a possiblity when it was created, failed to deal with it when it happened in the late 1930s, and is one of the major causes of the failure of the League. RobS 14:28, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Teapot

I added a section on the Teapot that puts most of the blame on Fall (where it belongs). I hope I wasn't too unfair to Robert M. LaFollette (Sr). Also do you think it is inappropriate to mention the innuendo around Harding's death and its possible connection to Teapot? I tried to balance that out by making it clear the rumors were instantiated, but the fact is that his death did cause loads of speculation. I felt it should be treated. Richard 23:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

What do you think of this?

Too much of a hatchet job? Or a reasonable mainstream appraisal? Dpbsmith 20:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Frederick Lewis Allen wrote in 1931 that

Under his imposing exterior he was just a common small-town man, an "average sensual man," the sort of man who likes nothing better in the world than to be with the old bunch when they gather at Joe's place for an all-Saturday-night session, with waistcoats unbuttoned and cigars between their teeth and an ample supply of bottles at hand.... Even making allowance for the refraction of Harding's personality through that of Nan Britton, [in her book] one sees with deadly clarify the essential ordinariness of the man, the commonness of his "Gee, dearie" and "Say, you darling," his being swindled out of a hundred dollars by card sharpers on a train ride... after he had reached the White House, the rowdies of the Ohio gang were fundamentally his sort.[2]

What needs to be noted is the conservativism of Harding's day consisted of these two things: isolationism and protectionism. This is what got him elected, and this is what he stood for. Today, both these concepts have been entirely rejected by closed minded stuffed-shirt conservatives who are unwilling to change. The Republican Party has repudiated these ideas. Now, isolationism and protectionsim still exist in America, a few Republicans & conservatives like Buchanan, or Ross Perot, or Socialists like Richard Gebphardt embrace protectionism; isolationism is the dominant view among the so-called "liberal left" anti-war movement. But the dominant "conservative" attitudes of Harding's era bare scant resemblance to the dominant conservative views of today.

Oh, goodness, I didn't want to get into the let's-boost-Harding/let's-bash-Harding thing. I was just thinking we could use something or other about what the man's personality was like. Taylor writing in 1931 would have been close enough to have been in the milieu and distant enough to have some objectivity. In case it isn't clear I'd like to put this in the article, but I wanted to get some talk about it first. I know that Frederick Lewis Allen "Only Yesterday" is famous and frequently referred to (and a very good read) but I don't know Allen's own politics. Dpbsmith 21:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm.... "Frederick Lewis Allen is best known as the sharp-eyed editor of Harper's magazine. Through Harper's--and the several books and articles he wrote--Allen both chronicled and shaped American journalism in the twentieth century.... Sam Riley, in an article for Dictionary of Literary Biography, suggested, "Allen might be described as a New England, Ivy League gentleman editor." (Contemporary Authors Online) Doesn't sound grotesquely liberal or conservative to me... Dpbsmith 21:50, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Well this is an important article in showing how the history of conservativism has evolved; when we see that he (1) did not want entaglements in foreign wars, (2) was anti-free trade, and (3) carried on extra-materal affairs in the White House, he doesn't look much like what we'd call a conservative at all. In fact, he looks much the opposite. RobS 21:55, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Warren G. Harding picked 4 conservative justices to the Supreme Court. His record was better than that of Reagan, Bush I or Bush II. Harding also kept us out of the League of Nations; limited immigration; and embraced free enterprise. Harding picked Coolidge, who succeeded him. Harding's record is pretty strong. FYI, I wrote the stuff about the Court in this entry, not "Richard".--Aschlafly 22:34, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I put it the Court stuff back in. But you would agree that isolationism & protectionism, while still prevelent, has been pretty much abandoned by the GOP? RobS 22:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

In pointing to his "record" you are speaking to the number of appointments, not the quality of them, right? Let's take care, in undoing bias, we don't try to dress Harding up as a silk purse, eh? He was pretty clueless, and left most of what is attributed to him, to others to actually decide. --~ TerryKMyTalk 23:03, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

These terms "isolationism" and "protectionism" are a bit pejorative. Conservatives would say they are simply adhering to the wisdom of George Washington (e.g., Farewell Address) and other Founders. Big business Republicans oppose these things, but just today economist Alan Blinder (about whom we need an entry) reversed his position on "free trade."

More generally, I think much of this content page is accurate. "Richard" may be a phony, but many of these statements (including my own) are true.--Aschlafly 23:13, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

The Court appointments were true economic conservatives, resisting the expansion of federal power & spending. There is a tie in here with McCarthy, CPUSA, & Venona actually; Agricultural Adjustment Administration was one of the first New Deal programs declared unconstitutional and was riddled with Communists from day one (1933). RobS 23:18, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Rob, one needs to be careful of reading too much into history books. The facts are the facts, but assigning motivations are iffy at best. As I am sure Andy can tell you, rarely do politicians, and their appointees look to the future about anything, or have much concept of their actions impacting the future, for good or bad, when they are making political appointments. Connections made to things down the road are suspect, because later events might happen because "X" appointed "Y", it is almost always happenstance, sorry to report. I agree, Andy, the ariticle, sans the suspect citations, and the mostly gossipy account, short account of his death, was mainly ok. I didn't have a problem with your additions, and am in process of reorganizing many things, adding the bullets, etc. --~ TerryKMyTalk 23:44, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

What happened in the AAA (Agricultural Adjustment Administration) is particularly revealing. It was through the Dept of Agriculture that CPUSA members first entered government employment in New Deal programs-- as early as 1933, i.e. even before reestablishment of diplomatic relations with the USSR. By revealing I mean this, agricultural set asides were one of the first New Deal "releif" efforts, i.e. paying a landowner not to farm his land. Sharecroppers in Mississippi who did not own the land where employed and farming from the `1929-1933 period. Only after passage of "relief" efforts, i.e. intended to "help" the poor, the oppressed, the downtrodden, did poor B lack sharcroppers become homeless and unemployment as a result of passage of the agricultural set asides in the AAA Act.

This wasn't just an unitended consequence; this was active subversion to build a political coalition. And the poor sharecroppers oppressors cloaked themselves as their saviors. RobS 23:59, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, I take it you actually believe that, however the actuality of it was they had no idea of the good political idea they had hit on. Later, of course, deeper Democratic Party thinkers (mainly in Congress) saw the advantage of the people suckling on the government teet forever. Most of those thinking there was some deep-seated conspiracy, on the part of the CPUSA or the Kremlin, were proven wrong by Nixon, among others. Most were merely idealists/idiots. Not to say there weren't some dedicated Communists and anarchists worming their way in too. Not to say Moscow didn't, belatedly see the need to mine information from their sympathizer's. Politically, it wasn't until FDR was, for the most part dead, did the Democratic strategists begin to realize that with a bit of manipulation, the underclass could be exploited into a consistency they could use. Those guys weren't Communists, just opportunists. --~ TerryKMyTalk 00:37, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Moynihan Commission Report reads,

The first fact is that a significant Communist conspiracy was in place in Washington, New York, and Los Angeles[2]

By 1950, when it was learned that Weisband had revealed the existence of the VENONA project to the Soviets, the United States Government possessed information which the American public desperately needed to know: proof that there had been a serious attack on American security by the Soviet Union, with considerable assistance from what was, indeed, an “enemy within.” The fact that we knew this was now known to, or sufficiently surmised by, the Soviet authorities. Only the American public was denied this information.[3]RobS 01:00, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Well it is an act of relativism to say the espionage for getting the bomb can be equated with the efforts to create a massive welfare-addicted underclass to subvert politically for Democratic votes. --~ TerryKMyTalk 01:17, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

The X-line, or the group working on stealing nuke know-how in the 40s was only one program. CPUSA underground apparatus operated as an arm of the KGB for 27 years, from 1921 (prior to restoring diplomatic relations) to 1948, had 800 to 1200 people involved, and as Hayden Peake, the curator of CIA’s Historical Intelligence Collection said, "No modern government was more thoroughly penetrated." [4]

So penetrating a more-or-less free and open society, yeilded them agricultural secrets? How does one compare penetration of a police state vis-a-vi a democracy? I'm not arguing the point we were penetrated, I just note a somewhat alarmist or vindicative tone in the writing. The government being compromised isn't a small thing, but historically speaking, for what good it did them...I have been in the archives, and to imply Harding was hands-on and knowledgeable about much, well, one might as well claim Reagan actually worked 16 hour days on policy. --~ TerryKMyTalk 09:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Alger Hiss started out in the Agriculture Dept. That got their foot in the door. And like I showed about sharecroppers, the New Deal actually created hardship & sufferring among societies most vulnerable. And who was a "liberal" who touted the plight of sharcroppers? why Priscilla Hiss, no less. RobS 11:36, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

We have a classic illustration of alleged "liberal compassion" here; first New Deal programs destroyed their jobs & threw them out in the street, then more New Deal programs were invented to deal with the dislocation their "relief efforts" created. RobS 17:31, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, don't hate the playa, hate the game, lol. It was a brilliant political move, albeit sinister and destructive, and only now seeing signs of it being undone. Reagan couldn't have in 20 years, dismantled it, and more importantly weaned people off of entitlements. They are here to stay. --~ TerryKMyTalk 20:03, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

References

PHD

I removed "* He is the only president to have a PhD." as it is false, that was Wilson.JamesBenjamin 18:30, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Major change to Warren G. Harding death section

I have taken it upon myself to make a major alteration to the death section of this article, which when I found it, suggested that there was a great unsolved mystery there. As that is at best an urban legend and at worst (which is my own cynical view) a propaganda move by liberal Democrats, I attempted to correct it. A sysop has kindly called my attention to the fact that I left no explanation, and noted that this might lead to a revert or a block. Natch, I do not wish this to happen. I am fairly new to this, and my mastery of the editing tools and Conservapedia process is very limited indeed. The changes I made were footnoted, all to the same source, but that secondary source, by a professor and noted Harding scholar, points to the primary sources, some of which I have checked in depth, and all of which I have checked to some degree, that is, by Net search. I would add that a close reading of Frederick Lewis Allen's work shows copious bias against Republicans. His entire thesis fits in with what Galbraith refers to in "The Great Crash 1929" as the myth of ten fat years followed by ten lean: an obvious reference to Genesis. The idea is that America was frivolous and selfish and sinful in the 1920s, and paid for it in the thirties. The sins of Harding are part of that narrative, as is the public's unconcern with the scandals which the Democrats in Congress flogged so assiduously. I don't see the point of an internet encyclopedia for conservatives if all it does is repeat liberal bias. So I sought to point out the shoddiness of Allen's "informal history" of Harding's death by the use of facts.

Still, I'm sorry if I offended anyone. I am new, and I can see that this entry has been the tool of a prankster vandal in the past, so I'm sure that there is some wariness. But if anyone digs up Prof. Ferrell's book, they will find that my cites are valid. And googling Means and Adams will similarly produce copious refernces to the facts cited (although to be sure, Ferrell is often given as the source). Leffingwell 17:19, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Further note: the same sysop has pointed out the rule that one should edit in preference to deletion. There was no way I could find to do that here, as I was just outright 180 degrees reversing what was here. I was reluctant to do this, but I saw no alternative, and I hope the sysops will allow the change. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leffingwell(talk)

Taking your edits overall, rather than individually, it appears that you have edited rather than deleted. And the etiquette rule about editing rather than deleting is not a hard-and-fast rule, but a guideline; sometimes straight-out deletion is the best option. Philip J. Rayment 03:30, 9 July 2007 (EDT)